The publication of the Peri Committee's proposals has sparked a stormy public debate, as expected.
The proposals are being
attacked from two primary directions. One is from the haredi
(ultra-Orthodox) population, which vehemently opposes the proposed
reforms aimed at altering the status quo, which it finds amenable. The
other side opposes what it calls the overly compromising nature of the
proposals. What kind of burden equality can there be, they argue, when
enlistment for haredi men is postponed until they turn 21, and when
1,800 yeshiva students will be given exemptions every year?
I won't deal here with
the criticism voiced by the haredim. Basically, I view draft dodging as
an immoral act, which undermines the foundations of Jewish solidarity,
contradicts the fundamental Jewish principle of vouching for your fellow
man, and runs counter to the obligation we all have to do our part in
our righteous war to be here. And what can be considered more of a
"righteous war" than the struggle for the Jewish state's existence and
for the peace and security of its citizens, a struggle that has
continued since the creation of the state and for which more than 25,000
people have sacrificed their lives?
Indeed, it is the
criticism by those who support "the equality of the burden" -- a term I
don't like because I consider serving in the Israel Defense Forces a
profound privilege, not a burden -- that actually requires attention. It
is easy for me to understand the criticism because the proposal really
isn't ideal and doesn't provide the only fair and just solution -- equal
service for all.
In principle,
postponing enlistment or establishing quotas is uncalled for. I see
Torah studies as a value and I believe the Jewish state should treat it
that way by supporting Torah study in its various forms. However, those
who study the Torah need to serve in the Israel Defense Forces and be a
model of "Sifra ve Saifa" ("Scroll and Sword"). Yet despite my
fundamental stance on the matter, I support the type of compromise
recommended by the Peri Committee.
I believe in reforms. I
don’t believe in revolutions. We cannot fix a reality that has been
built for 65 years at one fell swoop. We cannot instantly repair the
gigantic mistakes made by two great leaders, David Ben-Gurion and
Menachem Begin. The former essentially paved the way for draft dodging;
the latter made it applicable en masse.
Attempting to force
comprehensive and immediate enlistment on the haredi population would
have failed, and it would have come at a heavy social price. Reaching
agreement based on gradual change, through open and honest dialogue with
the haredim, is the required course of action. Coming to agreement in
such a manner is better and more worthwhile, even if the change is
smaller and takes longer, because of the very fact that it is agreed.
Regretfully, the haredi
leadership, whether political or rabbinical, was not ready for real
compromise. Yet the Peri Committee still formulated a serious plan. It
is balanced and accounts for the reality of the situation and for the
haredi viewpoint. One can only hope that the Israeli political system
displays the maturity to adopt it. We can also hope for the haredi
leadership to change its approach and be willing to become a partner for
change. By doing so, it can influence the details of the agreement.
Perhaps acknowledging that the ways of the past are no longer feasible
will lead the haredi leaders to approach things differently.
Another reform
presented last week is the so-called Tzohar Law, which would allow
couples to choose which rabbinate will oversee their marriage without
any restrictions based on what city they live in, as is currently the
law. This reform is meant to neutralize the corruption power of
extremist conservative rabbis who make the lives of secular and
traditionally observant religious citizens miserable, because they are
dependent on them to get married or divorced.
This is not a
far-reaching revolution for religious life in Israel. Civil marriage is
not at hand and neither is the desired measure of granting equality to
all Jewish schools of thought. For this reason it was harshly criticized
by those who said that it was not enough to change the religious
reality in the country and therefore was insignificant.
But maybe this change
will allow any couple to choose more open and enlightened rabbis, who
are sensitive to their personal needs -- rabbis who represent a Judaism
based on pleasantness, accommodation and peaceful solutions. The
stampede of couples to these rabbis would obligate all rabbis to adapt
themselves to their clients to survive.
There are those who oppose this change only
because they fear its success, because they want to reap the fruits of
the hatred toward the rabbinate and the current reality. But much like
the army enlistment matter, it is also right to support gradual changes
in religious services, which are still a giant leap for Israeli society. 
No comments:
Post a Comment